Well, there was that scene from David Cronenberg's Existenz, in which Jude Law's character assembles a pistol from the bones in his Chinese restaurant meal, seemingly unaware of what he's doing: "I need to kill our waiter."

This kind of software should be entirely up to the operator of the printer to use or not use.

No, it should not.

Kindly elaborate on your position.

Why should anybody be permitted to tell me what I can and cannot print? Should automotive manufacturers be allowed to put in blocks so I don't print parts to their cars? Should the coat hanger industry prevent me from printing coat hangers? Maybe the screwdriver collective needs to ensure that I can't print a flat-head screwdriver.

What in the fuck hell shit balls stupid bullshit is this supposed to be, anyways? Okay, let's say that you have a grand mal seizure near a Makerbot at some point and somehow manage to download and print the plans to a gun, "accidentally", sure. Or maybe little Timmy thought that a printable 9mm was actually a fucking super soaker because he was dropped on his head a few too many times as a kid.

This is not going to be very effective at preventing weapons even if mandated by law, it's a false sense of security and might be used to justify increases in cost unnecessarily. People are going to learn how to bypass those restrictions, create their own printer, or just replace the board. This has the potential to be helpful in houses with children; though, it won't last long as they grow up and learn how to do research on the Internet.

Too bad that it might prevent the printing of water guns, bubble guns, or other non-lethal toys. Models for school projects, work projects, and even stage props would be restricted.

This kind of software should be entirely up to the operator of the printer to use or not use.

No, it should not.

What are you scared of? Are you SERIOUSLY scared of someone printing a gun, and what nefarious deed are they going to do with this gun, that they couldn't do cheaper and more effectively in any other way? It even has a real possibility of blowing up in their hands because they used the wrong tool for the wrong application. Buying a working properly made gun takes less effort and money than a 3D printer, and buying a baseball bat or a golf club takes less than that.

Anyways, no one would use this software as soon as it prevents them from printing a spring they wanted or a vase or a nozzle or a roller or any part it identifies as a possible gun part. Even then, the print could just be changed to print the parts differently anyways. The whole idea is silly.

I don't think the chances of a young child, with access to a 3d printer and the knowledge of how to use it, tracking down a firearm blueprint, printing the components, assembling them, then getting ammunition and loading and firing the weapon all by accident and without parental knowledge are astronomically low.

This was a pretty terrible argument for this company's software. They should have went with something more practical like preventing people getting easy access to cheap, unlicensed firearms.

This kind of software should be entirely up to the operator of the printer to use or not use.

No, it should not.

Kindly elaborate on your position.

Why should anybody be permitted to tell me what I can and cannot print? Should automotive manufacturers be allowed to put in blocks so I don't print parts to their cars? Should the coat hanger industry prevent me from printing coat hangers? Maybe the screwdriver collective needs to ensure that I can't print a flat-head screwdriver.

Focus, this is a gun. This Straw man argument coming from libertarians and gun fanboys is sicking . Not a car, not a coat hanger nor a screwdriver .

If you want to manufacture firearms you should be required to have a license and comply with regulations. If you want to have a gun you should be required to pass proper training for self-defense (not warfare) . Guns should not be transferable neither. Etc etc etc

well, in most countries that ban the ownership and manufacturing of firearms, the selling of 3D printers would probably require such software to be in place. "Accidentally" printing a lower receiver means some chump clicking on a file and hitting print and now knowing what it is, and then potentially getting in legal trouble for manufacturing weapons parts. This would prevent that scenario.

Those who really want to print 3D gun parts, they would probably have no trouble bypassing this system

Focus, this is a gun. This Straw man argument coming from libertarians and gun fanboys is sicking . Not a car, not a coat hanger nor a screwdriver .

If you want to manufacture firearms you should be required to have a license and comply with regulations. If you want to have a gun you should be required to pass proper training for self-defense (not warfare) . Guns should not be transferable neither. Etc etc etc

It is, and always has been, perfectly legal to manufacture your own firearms in the US. It doesn't happen much because frankly it's a good way to blow your arm off.

Nope. Do you really think people aren't going to figure out ways to disable this app if not completely remove it from printers? How successful has Hollywood been in fighting copyright infringement?

Has anyone been able to bypass TiVO's signing restrictions? Or any other device that imposes AES backed signing requirements? If this nonsense is loaded -on- the printer, and that printer requires signed firmware, bypassing it would be hell if not outright impossible.

Which is why I said that they would need to have the entire hobbyist world be forcibly killed, because this software is void on its face so long as building the printers themselves is completely within the reach of every remotely technically minded person out there.

Open printers and open hardware nullify arbitrary restrictions. This is good for you and me, and bad for companies that depend and rely on them.

This kind of software should be entirely up to the operator of the printer to use or not use.

No, it should not.

What are you scared of? Are you SERIOUSLY scared of someone printing a gun, and what nefarious deed are they going to do with this gun, that they couldn't do cheaper and more effectively in any other way? It even has a real possibility of blowing up in their hands because they used the wrong tool for the wrong application. Buying a working properly made gun takes less effort and money than a 3D printer, and buying a baseball bat or a golf club takes less than that.

Anyways, no one would use this software as soon as it prevents them from printing a spring they wanted or a vase or a nozzle or a roller or any part it identifies as a possible gun part. Even then, the print could just be changed to print the parts differently anyways. The whole idea is silly.

It doesn't matter. You are making vey bold assumptions about people intentions . A gun is not a toy nor a screwdriver. It is the perfect tool to kill. It doesn't matter how you build it, you should have a license to do that. This technology is progressing fast, cheaper and more efficient. Who are you trying to fool?

This kind of software should be entirely up to the operator of the printer to use or not use.

I have better things to do than worry about someone, somewhere, misusing something made by a 3D printer.

Either angelusSatanae critically failed his/her sarcasm roll or he/she is just being a huge troll. If the latter please don't feed.

I agree with you, Boskone. And it isn't just that I have better things to do but that I believe my elected officials have better things to tackle than mandating what I can and can't do with a printer. Sadly, there will probably be a market for this large enough to encourage competition. I can't wait to see the patent.

In general, our software works like an antivirus [program], we have a central database [where] we collect all the files that are firearms.”

It's a continuously updated whitelist w/ a little extra magic tossed in. Basically they took the concept of control/ restriction software and applied it to gun printing.

This ONLY works as long as the blueprint exists on the whitelist (or blacklist - however you wish to view it). Or the "gun" fits the normal traditional concept of a gun.

Easily bypassed by changing naming conventions in the file to not say "gtun" (or similar). Additionally - who says a "gun" has to be the traditional lok and feel of what you find in a gunshop ? handle barrell trigger etc... ZIP Guns anyone ?

Hell - I was making projectile devices using ink pens back in high school w/o any instructions. Modifying said static files for 3D printing to fool the printer against this type of software is not going to be hard. Change the watermakring - the embedded tags / ids - whatever the software is specifically looking for and hit print.

Final thought: Gun designs share many similar components to other mechanical devices - springs - levers - channelled tubes - so how is the filtering software going to distinguish between someone printing out a hydraulic piston and a gun ?